The trajectory of Nigeria’s democratic development remains fraught with contradictions. While regular elections may signal democratic continuity, the persistent entanglement of electoral processes with money, violence, and state-sanctioned repression undermines the substance of democratic governance. The 2015 presidential election serves as a critical juncture in this narrative, revealing the extent to which institutional legitimacy can be compromised when democratic processes are subordinated to power politics and strategic violence.
One of the most controversial episodes preceding the 2015 election was the abduction of the Chibok schoolgirls, which generated global outrage and mobilized the now-famous “#BringBackOurGirls” campaign. While the humanitarian crisis warranted global concern, emerging analyses suggest the campaign may have been co-opted and instrumentalized for political ends. It arguably became part of a broader strategy to delegitimize the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan, thereby shifting national and international support in favor of the opposition.
President Jonathan’s electoral loss, though officially attributed to the democratic process, occurred within a broader context of securitized political discourse, extensive propaganda, and elite mobilization. His administration, already burdened by the Boko Haram insurgency in the North East, was portrayed as inept and indifferent. The opposition, led by then-candidate Muhammadu Buhari, capitalized on this narrative of insecurity, receiving both domestic elite backing and external endorsement. Notably, regions that were economically exploited, particularly the oil-producing South, saw little developmental reciprocity, as extractive benefits were redirected to political elites, leaving local populations to endure worsening poverty and violence.
The deterioration of security in parts of the Middle Belt and the South during the 2015 electoral season was accompanied by credible reports of electoral violence, voter suppression, ballot theft, and politically motivated assassinations. These were not isolated incidents but part of a pattern that signaled the weakening of electoral integrity and institutional safeguards. Disinformation campaigns and identity-based mobilizations further polarized the electorate, disrupting the prospects of national cohesion.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s political rise stands in contrast to these dynamics. His trajectory, marked by resistance to federal overreach and sustained political organization in the Southwest, signals a more independent political ethos. However, the broader system remains plagued by structural violence and elite manipulation. However, the Igbo youths are not as much marked and targeted by the brutal sponsored killers as was the case before Tinubu’s ascension to the presidency.
The Buhari administration’s security policies arguably entrenched state violence, particularly in the South East. Operations such as “Python Dance” resulted in the deaths of hundreds of unarmed civilians and the militarization of civic spaces. These actions, framed as counterinsurgency efforts, exacerbated historical grievances tied to the Biafran conflict and fueled narratives of political marginalization, economic exclusion, and development. The lack of federal responsiveness to violence in places like Benue and Plateau States further revealed regional disparities in the application of justice and protection.
Centralization of policing authority renders Governors powerless in addressing security challenges
Constitutionally, Nigerian governors are designated as chief security officers of their states. However, the centralization of policing authority in Abuja effectively renders them powerless in addressing internal security challenges. This imbalance creates a vacuum in state-level governance, fostering a culture of impunity where both state and non-state actors evade accountability. The absence of consequences for perpetrators of violence, particularly in rural and opposition-held areas, reinforces public cynicism toward national institutions.
Efforts by the Tinubu administration to devolve security responsibilities to subnational units mark a potential turning point. The endorsement of state-led security initiatives could empower communities to respond more effectively to local threats, protect their bushes from the Malian and other foreign slayers, especially in the wake of failed border policies and unchecked militia movements during the previous administration. Programs such as the Ruga settlement plan, ostensibly aimed at resolving farmer-herder conflicts, were perceived in the South as demographic and cultural encroachments. Resistance to such policies often provoked state retaliation, further entrenching mistrust and division.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this trajectory is the differential treatment of armed actors. While the federal government allocated significant resources to deradicalize and reintegrate former insurgents in the North, peaceful protesters and marginalized youths in the South were met with incarceration or extrajudicial force. The inequity in state responses highlights the selective application of justice and the politicization of security.
The death of Governor Rotimi Akeredolu, a rare advocate for regional self-determination within constitutional limits, represents a loss for advocates of decentralization and transparency. In contrast, the example of U.S. state governance, such as Texas deploying its National Guard for border security, illustrates how federal systems can accommodate localized responses to national crises without breaching constitutional norms. President Tinubu’s call for state-level security reforms must be matched by structural support and constitutional clarity.
The Buhari era further witnessed the centralization of power and the marginalization of dissenting voices. Delays in transferring executive power during periods of medical incapacitation, disregard for institutional checks, and the weaponization of anti-corruption rhetoric for political gain reflect a broader trend: the erosion of democratic accountability. What began as a quest to unseat Jonathan gradually evolved into a governance paradigm characterized by repression, sectionalism, and the misuse of state authority.
To move forward, Nigeria must confront the legacy of electoral violence and the drift toward authoritarianism. The consolidation of democracy requires more than periodic elections; it demands institutions that are transparent, accountable, and representative of the people. Violence, whether state-sanctioned or insurgent-led, cannot serve as a tool of political engineering. Democracy must be grounded in justice, equity, and respect for human rights.
The nation’s youth, whose futures are most at stake, deserve a Nigeria where ballots, not bullets, determine who leads the country. Citizens of Nigeria must insist that politicians earn democratic legitimacy through fair competition, not manufactured through coercion. If Nigeria is to assume its rightful place as a regional leader and global actor, it must commit to institutional reform, electoral integrity, and inclusive governance.
____
■ Dr. Onwudiwe, a Professor of Criminology at Texas Southern University, is on the EDITORIAL BOARD of the WAP
- Nigerian Leaders and the Frequent Certificate Forgery Conundrum - October 8, 2025
- Nigeria 2027: Breaking Free from the Suffocating Cycle of Power - September 28, 2025
- Why Nnewi might keep getting less from their Assembly Members - September 27, 2025